Sept. 13, 2006
In summer 2003 the noun "Bright" burst into the lexicon after it appeared in a column by Richard Dawkins in the London Guardian and in a column by Daniel Dennett in the New York Times. The coiners of the term, Mynga Futrell and Paul Geisert, defined a Bright as "a person whose worldview is naturalistic (free of supernatural and mystical elements)."
Despite the term's auspicious introduction by two world-renowned scientists, I'm still looked at quizzically by members of the general public when I use "bright" as a noun. Such confusion prompted me to research the current state of the "Brights Movement."
I must first state that I find the concept underlying the bright movement, well, brilliant. As stated in correspondence with Humanist Network News, Futrell and Geisert state that they wanted to define a category of people by what they are (free of supernatural beliefs) rather than by what they are not (non-believers or non-theists).
Indeed, the original motivation for developing the bright concept came from Futrell and Geisert's dismay at the use of the term "godless" in the "Godless American March on Washington" that occurred on Nov. 2, 2002. As stated on the Brights website, "Both terms (godless and nonbeliever) define people, trap them actually, into being defined by reference to religion and, for most practical purposes, just by one aspect in their broad-spectrum worldviews."
Futrell and Geisert quite correctly state that before the advent of the Brights Movement, many people did not have a term to define their beliefs, and thus had no way of identifying themselves and connecting with like-minded others. Believing themselves to be alone and having no way to reach out, they could not form a constituency to counteract the increasing intrusion of religious and supernatural ideas into our lives. As they stated in a recent article, "We intended that Brights would focus on their social and electoral circumstances, not their -– or others' –- beliefs."
Geisert and Futrell also assumed (probably correctly) that potential Brights were not "joiners" in the traditional sense and would be reluctant to become part of a group that required regular attendance to be effective. They were therefore careful to stress in our correspondence that "The Brights movement...is a constituency of individuals working toward a level civic/societal playing field for citizens of all worldviews."
Instead of meeting physically, Brights identify themselves and meet online by forming an "Internet Constituency of Brights." It is hoped that as more individuals discover they are Brights, identify themselves as such and sign onto the Internet constituency of Brights, they will form a critical mass of citizens who can influence social and public policy.
How is the Brights Movement progressing three years after its inception? Perhaps the best way to analyze its progress is in reference to the goals delineated on the Brights website.
- 1. Grow the Brights numerically to increase general visibility and raise awareness (current priority)
- 2. Call for and/or facilitate individual actions by Brights in specific situations (future)
- 3. Arrange for actions by cadres of constituents in explicit circumstances (future)
This consistent growth does not appear to have increased awareness among the general public. I understand that Futrell and Geisert are not interested in "converting" non-Brights into Brights but simply in allowing those who are already Brights to identify themselves. However, the concept of the Brights needs to become part of public awareness before they can hope to influence social and public policy.
Why doesn't the general public recognize Bright as a noun? I believe that there are two reasons for this lack of awareness. The first is the very term itself –- "Bright" -- that was chosen to represent a category of people. The Brights website states "One long-term goal is to change the vocabulary of mainstream society such that bright is used in a new way, somewhat analogous to the use of the word gay."
Unfortunately, co-opting the word "bright" has different implications than co-opting the word "gay." The original meaning of "gay" is happy or joyous, so if you were not gay before about 1965, you were sad –- not exactly an insult. If you were gay, it simply described your temporary emotional state and made no comment upon your value as a person. However, if you are not bright in the traditional sense of the word, then you are...dumb. Describing someone as bright makes a positive statement on his/her intellectual capacity; therefore most people will not call themselves bright for fear of appearing arrogant.
Despite Futrell and Geisert's insistence that the word as a noun has a different meaning than its use as an adjective, you cannot erase the public's lexical memory (the Scientologists have discovered this in their effort to use "clear" as a noun to describe themselves). Therefore, many who fit the definition of a Bright have been reluctant to identify themselves as such, and those who have are often viewed as arrogant and pretentious. Brights thus face the same problem as those who identify themselves as atheists or liberals –- public opprobrium due to their use of a word that other segments of society have managed to turn into "dirty" words.
But it was this very problem –- having to use words loaded with cultural baggage –- that the term "Bright" was coined to escape! Will Brights be able to create a more positive view of the word so that others will proudly identify themselves as Brights to the public to create the awareness that is necessary to gain social and political influence?
The second problem with creating awareness of the Brights as a distinct category is the frequent lumping together of Brights and atheists. Much of the public that is aware of the term believe it to be a synonym for atheist. An article in Science and Theology News that stated "These anti-religious atheists, who want us to call them "brights...." required Futrell and Geisert to reply in the magazine that "There is a rather startling spectrum of people who are Brights...atheists, agnostics, ethical culturalists, humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, rationalists, naturalists and skeptics....There are plenty of 'nones' –- the individuals who, when confronted by a questionnaire that asks 'Religion?' will state 'None.'"
Will the Brights be able to clear up this misunderstanding?
The Brights Movement has had some success in facilitating the individual and occasional group actions that are their (future) goals. A Brights "constituent observer" attended the United Religions Initiative (URI) held in Brussels last fall (the URI invited a Brights "representative," but as the movement is not an organization but a constituency of autonomous individuals, an "observer" was sent instead). There are Brights local constituencies and Brights Meetups which are quite active in some areas (mostly major urban areas). The Brights e-zine, The Brights Bulletin, lists occasional "Brighten Ops"and "Special Initiative Groups" that call for groups to act on a specific issue. The Brights Movement Forums have many members from all over the world and are very active.
Will the Brights be able to influence social opinion and public policy in the future? I believe that they will only be able to exert influence when enough people feel comfortable loudly identifying themselves as Brights, but many are reluctant to appear arrogant by using the term. The Brights were formed as a new group to escape past cultural baggage, but made an unfortunate choice of terminology that saddled them with a term that makes them appear pretentious and condescending. Can they change this perception or will they have to start over again?
Elaine Friedman is the editor of Humanist Network News, the weekly e-zine of the Institute for Humanist Studies.
